The SEC has finally announced its decision on the complaint filed against Rappler for alleged violation of regulations prohibiting foreign ownership of media organizations. I consider this decision as a clear example of how the rule of law in the Philippines is functioning fully and how the government takes the freedom of the press seriously. Detractors of the government will consider this as another example of how the Duterte administration is going after the press and a clear act of an authoritarian leader.
The problem with many of these noisy detractors is that they do not know how to evaluate the subtlety of the issues and to distinguish the facts from the emotions. First let me deal with the emotions of these detractors, mostly millennials who are emotionally inept. To most of these snowflakes the SEC decision is a direct attack against the freedom of the press. Ask them why and they will give you a shallow emotional answer of – because Rappler was ordered to be closed by the government and Rappler is a media organization. If you hear someone tell you this, ask them condescendingly to read the SEC decision because obviously they have not read up on the issues.
Now let us get on with the facts. Why did the SEC revoke Rappler’s Certificate of incorporation?
Read what the SEC ruling says here. But let me share an excerpt here:
What is very clear is the fact that Rappler intentionally gave a foreign entity some degree of control and they tried to hide it from the public and the regulators through an elaborate scheme. This not only shows Rappler violated the constitution but most importantly, knowingly did it and tried to hide it. Rappler was not just shut-down out of the blue – they knew about this case and was even given a chance to respond by the SEC. For them to say this was not done with due process is absurd – read the SEC case timeline and you will see that Rappler was given every reasonable opportunity to defend itself. Let us get this fact straight – Rappler violated the law and part of the consequence is the revocation of their certificate of incorporation. I am not making an assertion here but stating a fact. I know a lot of the Liberal party and Rappler fans out there will have their alternative facts of the case. But to hell with their disjointed sense of reality.
Another thing I want to mention and point out to these alarmist libertarians is the fact that there is a clear difference between the literal death of Rappler Inc and the claimed figurative death of the freedom of the press in the Philippines. Yes, the constitution protects the freedom of the press but the constitutional protection of the press is primarily against prior restraint and against any subsequent responsibility as long as the act of the press does not violate any laws. The constitutions says; “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Article III Sec 4. The language and the spirit of the provision clearly protects the press from any government intervention that would curtail their freedom to exercise their speech and expression. The constitution however does not even hint at the possibility of this right to be absolute and that has always been the understanding. In fact the constitution in another Article creates a restriction on mass media corporations who will embody the ideal of the press. The constitution says; “The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens. Article XVI Sec 11(1). Notice how the framers of the constitution does not see any incompatibility between these two provisions – one protecting the freedom of the press and one limiting ownership of media companies. This again is a fact that we should agree on. So what did the SEC do? Did it kill the freedom of the press by revoking Rappler’s certificate of incorporation? The constitution does not prohibit what the SEC did, in fact it required it to act in exactly the way it acted. The SEC may have killed the media organization but remember the fact that the constitution and its framers knew the distinction between the existence of an artificial legal entity (ie. Rappler Inc.) and the freedom of the press in our country. If the framers of the constitution saw both of them as inseparable and considered the existence of a media company to be essential for the exercise of press freedom then they should not have inserted a provision that would put any restrictions on a media corporation. It is clear from the language of our constitution that the right to free expression does not require the existence of a mass media corporation however it does acknowledge the fact that mass media corporation will try to embody this right. The constitution, recognizing the fact that artificial legal entities will embody this sacred right, saw the danger it may pose to our democracy. Contemplating the possible danger of foreign ownership of a democratic right, the constitution placed this prior restraint provision on mass media organizations. This is why I said earlier that what the SEC did is actually a great sign of how our government institutions value the freedom of the press. Rappler Inc, may be dead but the journalists who work there still have the right to speech, free expression and to publish their opinion in any way they want. The constitution does not guarantee a means for them to exercise this right so if their employer goes under, that is not a violation of their Constitutional right. They can always start their own blog and I’m sure working for Rappler these “journalists” have a lot of experience in blogging.
Lastly, I want to say that if Rappler does die a quick and explosive death, I will not miss them one bit. Why? Let me show you a more recent example of the kind of reporting Rappler is known for and why not having them in our newsfeed is actually good for the Filipino people’s collective intellect. In this example I will show you Rappler’s coverage of the annual Press Freedom Index score for the Philippines. Even in reporting Press Freedom the Rappler spits on their responsibility and shows their skewed and biased reporting.
 |
| 2016 coverage when Philippines was ranked 138th. This was before Duterte took office. |
 |
| 2017 coverage when Philippines actually improved in ranking to 127th during Duterte’s term. |
So let Rappler burn down to the ground. The Philippines press will remain vibrant without them. Anyone who says otherwise is just clearly ignoring the facts and have obviously blindly swallowed Rappler’s propaganda.
0 Comments